Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
get back in the closet, hypocrite.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Apr 7, 2005 at 05:32pm.]
How would you know you don't have any morals? But if you did I bet they came through a person or persons that did have God.
Not necessarily.
Most morals come from a pattern of social behaviour that evolved among members of a mammal pack. The Pink Elephant on Uranus, or that bearded Yahweh dude in Heaven or Beelzebub the Cool Guy in Gehenna had nothing to do with morals.
FYI, ALL morals breakdown when, in times of geological/climatic crisis, Survival of the Fittest principle and the primary self-preservation instincts kick-in.
That's why even neighbours and best friends loot and plunder others after extreme natural disasters.
worthy of study by those who want to study them...
That's a no-brainer, if you don'tbelieve in the Ten Commandments as final and immutable.
Can those who dobelieve in "sin" and "hell" , and in the commandments "Thou shalt not have partners before Me" and "Thou shalt not make graven images of Me", considerother/pagan religions worthy of study without theological repurcussions, even if they wantto ?
Why, yes.
Please educate me where in the Torah, Bible or Quran there is permission to consider other religions, especially those with idolatry, worthyof study, if you want to.
Yes, well perhaps if you would clearly-state just what you DO mean, or where you DO stand on these issues, instead of posting chapter & verse out of The Bible? That might help others to understand, just a little bit better.
Since my objection in Mr Spock 4/12/05 5:03amwas to your unreasonable claim ( inapplicable to those who are Abrahamic faithful ), it was necessary to use appropriate quotes to support my contrarian position.
My personal views had been clearly stated in my response to Jethro.
Perhaps, blinded by your zeal, you mistook the trees for the forest.
But then there is not much that is "Logical" about the reasons why Religion has caused so much death and so much hatred between various peoples... is there.
Atheist Communism has caused substantial, if not much more, "death". A casual look at the Soviet era in Eastern Europe, the Mao era in China, or the Pol Pot era in Cambodia, would help put your views in the proper perspective.
Of course, the question of "hatred" is still there. While the exclusive-monopoly-to-truth-and-salvation Abrahamic religions DO share a large proportion of the blame, one mustn't lose sight of the fact that Racism and Fascism have equally heinous roles in matters of "hatred", and religion has little to do with it.
Hardly "chapter and verse" (they were both paraphrased)... and it seems difficult to discuss what others believe in that context without, you know, saying those things that they actually believe. And it certainly wasn't any sort of example of using Bible verse instead of explaining what he thinks. On the contrary, explaining what he thought about it was exactly what that was about.
Funny, when I quoted Chapter and Verse concerning prayer, you understood exactly what I thought.
Atheist Communism has caused substantial, if not much more, "death"
So has natural disasters, but that doesn't really change that "there is not much that is "Logical" about the reasons why Religion has caused so much death and so much hatred between various peoples... is there".
but that doesn't really change that "there is not much that is "Logical" about the reasons why Religion has caused so much death and so much hatred between various peoples... is there".
Depends on the Axioms behind the Logic used.
The Maoists or Marxists have their own set of axioms behind their actions, and the "Logic" - post facto or ipso facto - that follows in justifying their murderous acts may indeed be rational in THAT context.
Similarly, to understand the "Logic" employed by religious fanatics in their genocidal campaigns, the axioms behind their thinking need to be understood.
The Axioms behind their Logic may notrhyme with your OWN set of axioms.
Therein lies the discrepancy of what constitutes "Logical" in their eyes and yours.
"Following a week's worth of conversation on his WORD-101.5 FM show that questioned whether Pope John Paul II's Roman Catholic beliefs could be an impediment to entering heaven, station management pulled the plug. "
Yes you do, and you accuse one man of just BEING a Jew, in your racist and stupid "Review" on another thread, which I have put up above as my Tag-Line, so you won't forget about actually sayingsuch a thing.
What about it is racist?
How can saying someone is a Jew
who is in fact Jewish be a racist statement? Only a man of limited intellect would say that.
Only a fool would defend pointing out to people that a person in a position of power in this free nation, is JEWISH,which you did and in the same breath as mentioning the KKK, no less. WHY ?  Because they are facts and they were pertinent to what was being expressed in the book.  Because you are truly frightened by "Those Jews" and "Gays", and now you are even too cowardly to admit it.
I am not frightened by anyone except people like you that are to damn dumb to vote but do!
Now, as to your question/agreement that Jethro's pointing out the non-important fact that any person, but in this case the one he is commenting on, as being " Also a Jew ", " just like Cordozo "(his words)?
It was important to point out how Justice McReynolds behaved towards Jews. Why is that so hard to understand? Â
 If you agree with him that identifying people as "Jews", or "Gypsies", or "Catholics", or "Homosexuals" or "Musicians" or "Garbage Collectors", whatever ... If you believe that that is a matter for anyone else's consideration/business in this Religiously-Tolerant and FREE Nation (formed in part to provide a religiously
tolerant
society to all peoples of any race or ethnicity and call it The United States Of America), then you are no better than the people who saw no problems with (or chose to ignore) the tatooing of identification-numbers on the arms of Jews in Germany, just before the National-Socialists baked them, by the millions.
The point was that is HOW a Supreme Court Justice saw things. It is people like you that see them as gods.
Personally, I treat any such "identifications" as inherant-accusations and the beginnings of intolerance, and so I comment on it, strongly.
Exactly. Justice McReynolds was intolerant that was the point. In order to tell you that it had to be explained that Justice Cardozo was Jewish.
"Well unless you can point to a similar religious afiliation requirement-clause in our U.S. Constitution or our English Language, then you are no better than Jethro is, and I am sorry. If you agree with him that identifying people as "Jews", or "Gypsies", or "Catholics", or "Homosexuals" or "Musicians" or "Garbage Collectors", whatever... If you believe that that is a matter for anyone else's consideration/business in this Religiously-Tolerant and FREE Nation (formed in part to provide a religiously tolerant society to all peoples of any race or ethnicity and call it The United States Of America), then you are no better than the people who saw no problems with (or chose to ignore) the tatooing of identification-numbers on the arms of Jews in Germany, just before the National-Socialists baked them, by the millions."
Otter of Animal House
"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests; we did. (winks) But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? (the other Deltas cheer; Otter addresses the Student Council President directly) I put it to you, Greg! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? (the Deltas cheer again)"
Well, youcan do what youwant to "us,"...... but we're not GOING to sit here and listen to you bad-mouththe United States of America?????? Gentlemen!
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Apr 18, 2005 at 05:31am.]
Since this is the religion thread, what do y'all think about Islam? Has it been hijacked by extremists, or is it evil in and of itself? Does "moderate" Islam exist, and if so where are the Muslims decrying the extremists?
Is Islam inherently unfair to women? Are honor killings a necessary part of the religion?
Are they really still reliving the Crusades, or is that just an excuse?
The muslims I know are nothing like the versions that seem to be prevalent in the media. Privately the women do play something of a traditional role, but they dress like any fashion conscious women from the west. They're educated and sophisticated. Drinking alcohol is not done in any gathering.
They defend their religion with the pride that anyone who is a believer in a religion would. I think they know much more about Christianity than I or most Christians know about Islam.
There is a Canadian woman named Irshad Manji (sp) who is probably the outspoken critic of her religion. As a whole, I'm gussing these moderate Muslims will never condemn the extremists strongly enough to satisfy the west
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 30, 2005 at 10:21am.]
Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?
what is funny is, in Prager's explanation of the difference between killing and murder, he provides definitions that are by their very nature subjective. There is no absolute, it all depends on the circumstances... and that is subjective.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on May 3, 2005 at 05:25pm.]
"According to the researchers, journalists are significantly more ethical than the average adult — eclipsed only by seminarians, doctors and medical students."
The study found that nurses, orthopedic surgeons and members of the Navy are sorrier, ethically, than journalists. Their grammar probably stinks worse, too.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 5, 2005 at 09:42am.]
"... Mr. Rather's and Mr. Jordan's misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply. Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all. They rarely have procedures for running a correction. The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent."
"A county Republican chairman says his bid to head the state party was sabotaged because a letter falsely accused him of having been married six times. The right number, he says, is five.
'"That's unconscionable," Seminole County Republican Party Chairman Jim Stelling said Tuesday in the trial over his defamation suit."
"Goettman, acting as her own attorney, asked Stelling: Five wives or six, when the number gets that high, does being off by one really matter?"
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.
maybe its because they don't keep score anymore in sports...maybe its because they don't say the "one nation under god"
What a horrible thing to say and teach our kids!
I agree with u...but look at it from an child's old eyes......Kids are not dumb..they know things are restricted!
but who's god are we under?
I'm willing to bet, it's not mine
doesn't matter....its a value...
you don't need god to have morals and values
Cool avatar Damon
Yeah, still haven't had a chance to go see it
maybe on Sunday
It's excellent in my book!
that's what I hear
I believe that even if Government doesn't allow 'God' in public schools that He is still by my daughters side everyday.
Yeah but he has to wear a disguise.
you don't need god to have morals and values
How would you know you don't have any morals? But if you did I bet they came through a person or persons that did have God.
poor jethro
thinks morality=religion
not so, my theocratic friend
Dumon the athiest preaching again...TFF.
agnostic, actually
and one not need believe in god to be moral, and it is possible for one to believe in god and be immoral
look at all those molesting priests
All those Italian priests.
get back in the closet, hypocrite.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Apr 7, 2005 at 05:32pm.]
actually, a good portion of them were American, you know
Does the Torah, Bible or Quran agree with your statement ?
Even if we go by the cliché "Hate the sin, not the sinner" that "moderates" love to repeat, the very fact that having "partners before Me" is a sin puts paid to your claim that Jews/Christians/Muslims can entertain "respect" for other non-Abrahamic beliefs, including those that incorporate aspects of idolatry, which is in direct contravention of "thou shalt not make graven images of Me".
Not necessarily.
Most morals come from a pattern of social behaviour that evolved among members of a mammal pack. The Pink Elephant on Uranus, or that bearded Yahweh dude in Heaven or Beelzebub the Cool Guy in Gehenna had nothing to do with morals.
FYI, ALL morals breakdown when, in times of geological/climatic crisis, Survival of the Fittest principle and the primary self-preservation instincts kick-in.
That's why even neighbours and best friends loot and plunder others after extreme natural disasters.
Go figure.
That's a no-brainer, if you don'tbelieve in the Ten Commandments as final and immutable.
Can those who dobelieve in "sin" and "hell" , and in the commandments "Thou shalt not have partners before Me" and "Thou shalt not make graven images of Me", considerother/pagan religions worthy of study without theological repurcussions, even if they wantto ?
Please educate me where in the Torah, Bible or Quran there is permission to consider other religions, especially those with idolatry, worthyof study, if you want to.
I'd be much obliged.
Hats off to your erudition.
I amgreatly obliged.
Do you see "religion" in those words anywhere ?
Since when is Logic and Philosophy synonymous with "faith" or "religion" ?
Tut-tut!
Where is the "divine" in that statement ?
You assumethat I had anything to do with the Bible in the first place.
I don't recall seeing Spock quote out of the Bible at all.
[Edited by molegrass on Apr 13, 2005 at 05:30am.]
Since my objection in Mr Spock 4/12/05 5:03amwas to your unreasonable claim ( inapplicable to those who are Abrahamic faithful ), it was necessary to use appropriate quotes to support my contrarian position.
My personal views had been clearly stated in my response to Jethro.
Perhaps, blinded by your zeal, you mistook the trees for the forest.
Atheist Communism has caused substantial, if not much more, "death". A casual look at the Soviet era in Eastern Europe, the Mao era in China, or the Pol Pot era in Cambodia, would help put your views in the proper perspective.
Of course, the question of "hatred" is still there. While the exclusive-monopoly-to-truth-and-salvation Abrahamic religions DO share a large proportion of the blame, one mustn't lose sight of the fact that Racism and Fascism have equally heinous roles in matters of "hatred", and religion has little to do with it.
Hardly "chapter and verse" (they were both paraphrased)... and it seems difficult to discuss what others believe in that context without, you know, saying those things that they actually believe. And it certainly wasn't any sort of example of using Bible verse instead of explaining what he thinks. On the contrary, explaining what he thought about it was exactly what that was about.
Funny, when I quoted Chapter and Verse concerning prayer, you understood exactly what I thought.
[Edited by molegrass on Apr 13, 2005 at 07:03am.]
So has natural disasters, but that doesn't really change that "there is not much that is "Logical" about the reasons why Religion has caused so much death and so much hatred between various peoples... is there".
Depends on the Axioms behind the Logic used.
The Maoists or Marxists have their own set of axioms behind their actions, and the "Logic" - post facto or ipso facto - that follows in justifying their murderous acts may indeed be rational in THAT context.
Similarly, to understand the "Logic" employed by religious fanatics in their genocidal campaigns, the axioms behind their thinking need to be understood.
The Axioms behind their Logic may notrhyme with your OWN set of axioms.
Therein lies the discrepancy of what constitutes "Logical" in their eyes and yours.
I hope I am amply clear.
[Edited by on Apr 13, 2005 at 10:10am.]
Earlier you asked whether religious mayhem is "Logical".
Now you ask whether religious mayhem is "OK".
They are poles apart.
Make up yourmind before you expect a rational answer.
and as much as you and Jethro may not like it, he is
Jewish...(as is William Shatner).
And what do you base such an outright lie? I have nothing against Jewish folk.
Of course not.
BTW, are the Jewish folk condemned sinners for not accepting Jesus as Yahweh's progeny and for crucifying him ?
Pope in Heaven? -- not a slam-dunk, says ex-radio talker
"Following a week's worth of conversation on his WORD-101.5 FM show that questioned whether Pope John Paul II's Roman Catholic beliefs could be an impediment to entering heaven, station management pulled the plug. "
Yes you do, and you accuse one man of just BEING a Jew, in your racist and stupid "Review" on another thread, which I have put up above as my Tag-Line, so you won't forget about actually sayingsuch a thing.
What about it is racist?
How can saying someone is a Jew
who is in fact Jewish be a racist statement? Only a man of limited intellect would say that.
[Edited by on Apr 15, 2005 at 11:07am.]
I don't know how that statement is racist, either. And I admit to having limited intellect. I think everyone's intellect has limits.
Do you disagree that I don't know what was racist about the statement? That doesn't make any sense.
And what's with all the question marks?
You always do that -- make a statement that's clearly not a question, but place question marks after it. Stop mangling the Queen's English!
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Apr 16, 2005 at 06:12am.]
Only a
fool
would defend pointing out to people that a person in a position of power in this free nation, is JEWISH,which you did and in the same breath as mentioning the KKK, no less. WHY ?
 Because they are facts and they were pertinent to what was being expressed in the book.
 Because you are truly frightened by "Those Jews" and "Gays", and now you are even too cowardly to
admit
it.
I am not frightened by anyone except people like you that are to damn dumb to vote but do!
Now, as to your question/agreement that Jethro's pointing out the non-important fact that any person, but in this case the one he is commenting on, as being "
Also a Jew
", "
just like Cordozo
"(his words)?
It was important to point out how Justice McReynolds behaved towards Jews. Why is that so hard to understand?Â
Â
 If you agree with him that identifying people as "Jews", or "Gypsies", or "Catholics", or "Homosexuals" or "Musicians" or "Garbage Collectors",Â
whatever
... If you believe that that is a matter for anyone else's consideration/business in this Religiously-Tolerant and FREE Nation (formed in part to provide a
religiously
tolerant
society
to all peoples of any race or ethnicity and call it The United States Of America), then you are no better than the people who saw no problems with
(or chose to ignore)
the tatooing of identification-numbers on the arms of Jews in Germany, just before the National-Socialists
baked
them, by the millions.
The point was that is HOW a Supreme Court Justice saw things. It is people like you that see them as gods.
Personally, IÂ treat any such "identifications" as inherant-accusations
and the beginnings of intolerance, and so I comment on it, strongly.
Exactly. Justice McReynolds was intolerant that was the point. In order to tell you that it had to be explained that Justice Cardozo was Jewish.
Separated at birth?
Bill of the Water Cooler:
"Well unless you can point to a similar religious afiliation requirement-clause in our U.S. Constitution or our English Language, then you are no better than Jethro is, and I am sorry. If you agree with him that identifying people as "Jews", or "Gypsies", or "Catholics", or "Homosexuals" or "Musicians" or "Garbage Collectors", whatever... If you believe that that is a matter for anyone else's consideration/business in this Religiously-Tolerant and FREE Nation (formed in part to provide a religiously tolerant society to all peoples of any race or ethnicity and call it The United States Of America), then you are no better than the people who saw no problems with (or chose to ignore) the tatooing of identification-numbers on the arms of Jews in Germany, just before the National-Socialists baked them, by the millions."
Otter of Animal House
"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests; we did. (winks) But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? (the other Deltas cheer; Otter addresses the Student Council President directly) I put it to you, Greg! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? (the Deltas cheer again)"
Well, youcan do what youwant to "us,"...... but we're not GOING to sit here and listen to you bad-mouththe United States of America?????? Gentlemen!
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Apr 18, 2005 at 05:31am.]
That's what I would have guessed.
Since this is the religion thread, what do y'all think about Islam? Has it been hijacked by extremists, or is it evil in and of itself? Does "moderate" Islam exist, and if so where are the Muslims decrying the extremists?
Is Islam inherently unfair to women? Are honor killings a necessary part of the religion?
Are they really still reliving the Crusades, or is that just an excuse?
The muslims I know are nothing like the versions that seem to be prevalent in the media. Privately the women do play something of a traditional role, but they dress like any fashion conscious women from the west. They're educated and sophisticated. Drinking alcohol is not done in any gathering.
They defend their religion with the pride that anyone who is a believer in a religion would. I think they know much more about Christianity than I or most Christians know about Islam.
There is a Canadian woman named Irshad Manji (sp) who is probably the outspoken critic of her religion. As a whole, I'm gussing these moderate Muslims will never condemn the extremists strongly enough to satisfy the west
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 30, 2005 at 10:21am.]
Today's suggested reading:
"Speaking Freely - Trials of the First Amendment"
Then I suggest you read it. Then you can give us a review.
Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050503.shtml
Is, say, slavery an objective wrong? An absolute moral wrong?
what is funny is, in Prager's explanation of the difference between killing and murder, he provides definitions that are by their very nature subjective. There is no absolute, it all depends on the circumstances... and that is subjective.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on May 3, 2005 at 05:25pm.]
If you want to see what Prager looks like, turn to "pompous ass" in any good dictionary.
Want someone to trust? -- look for a journalist
"According to the researchers, journalists are significantly more ethical than the average adult — eclipsed only by seminarians, doctors and medical students."
The study found that nurses, orthopedic surgeons and members of the Navy are sorrier, ethically, than journalists. Their grammar probably stinks worse, too.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 5, 2005 at 09:42am.]
If you want to see what Prager looks like, turn to "pompous ass" in any good dictionary.
Many bloggers who criticize the MSM's ethics, however, are in the anomalous position of holding themselves to lower standards, or no standards at all.
"... Mr. Rather's and Mr. Jordan's misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply. Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all. They rarely have procedures for running a correction. The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent."
Harper's Magazine might be worth a purchase this month
Megachurches and I think something called the Dominionist Movement are among the topics.
'I believe in family values so I had several families'
"A county Republican chairman says his bid to head the state party was sabotaged because a letter falsely accused him of having been married six times. The right number, he says, is five.
'"That's unconscionable," Seminole County Republican Party Chairman Jim Stelling said Tuesday in the trial over his defamation suit."
"Goettman, acting as her own attorney, asked Stelling: Five wives or six, when the number gets that high, does being off by one really matter?"
[Edited by on May 12, 2005 at 02:05pm.]
The so-called Dominionist Movement appears, so far, to be something made up and flogged by the MSM.